"Once the party figures out what it's for—or more precisely, against—it ought to stick to its story. People respect principle, even if they disagree with it."

I don't know about that. When you define your big tent as being united in opposition to something, don't you just come off as being a bunch of haters? The problem with making "out of the frying pan" into the basis of one's political ideology is that a thoughtful person could realize that "into the fire" fulfills the letter of your platform. But I guess the main problem that I have with a party defining what it's against as a means of tying itself together is that I've never been sure that I wouldn't find myself as being one of the Despised Other when it became politically expedient.

Absolutely. That's what hurt the democrats for most of this decade. They defined themselves as being against Bush. The GOP will have a long road ahead of themselves if they start being the party that agaisnt everything and for nothing.

agreed a party united souly by oppisition to something may have some inital sucesses but eventuallywill become a party of fear divisiveness and hate. we saw that this election where the GOPs only real approuch seemed to be to try and make americans fear what Obama could be. there was no message from mccain other then "I'M A WAR HERO, FEAR OBAMA!" I

agreed a party united souly by oppisition to something may have some inital sucesses but eventuallywill become a party of fear divisiveness and hate. we saw that this election where the GOPs only real approuch seemed to be to try and make americans fear what Obama could be. there was no message from mccain other then "I'M A WAR HERO, FEAR OBAMA!" I think

agreed a party united souly by oppisition to something may have some inital sucesses but eventuallywill become a party of fear divisiveness and hate. we saw that this election where the GOPs only real approuch seemed to be to try and make americans fear what Obama could be. there was no message from mccain other then "I'M A WAR HERO, FEAR OBAMA!" I think the

So true. And that thing shouldn't be "other people's money."

Remember 2004? This was the year of ABB (anybody but Bush.) The Democrats decided that John Kerry, a man with no charisma or charm and little substance, was put up to defeat Bush.

Don't get me wrong, I voted for Kerry because he wasn't Bush, but I felt no real passion for him as a leader.

That changed this time around. Obama was overwhelmingly positive and challenged Americans to become involved. McCain's campaign was one of negativity and saying how "bad and scary" Obama was. Had McCain stood for something he might have had a shot but instead he listened to the very operatives who slimed him back in 2000 and lost badly. He did give a great concession speech though.

If the GOP thinks that being against many things and not for anything then they will soon become a footnote in history. They won't be missed.

From a political standpoint, its a lot better to be against something than for something.

If you're running on opposition to pedophilia, almost everyone will vote for you. If you're running on liking the New York Yankees, you'll find a lot more people who dislike them than like them.

Indeed, this was the key component of Obama's victorious campaign - he never really came out in favor of much of anything, but rather allowed people to read into his campaign whatever positions they personally supported.

Depends on what you're running for. If you're running for president of NAMBLA, the anti-pedophilia platform won't get you very far. If you're running for a borough council seat in the Bronx you might win on a pro-Yankees ticket even if you are a pedophile.

In all seriousness, running by saying, "I'm against pedophilia" is like running running on "I'm against throwing grandmothers into the street." Who is really in favor of those things? What's more important is, what are you in favor of doing to stop pedophilia or keeping grandmoms in their homes? Tougher sentences? Monitoring the internet? Chemical castration? Lifetime sex offender registration and monitoring? Hiring Chris Hanson as your chief of police? That's where being FOR something is much more important.

Some anti- statements can be recast as positive statements with little trouble. Some of those positive statements manage to inspire more than the anti- statements did. Being against rape, for example, can be 'for safe homes and neighborhoods' or 'for justice'; being anti-rape is just part of the picture. Pedophilia is one of those anti- statements where being 'pro-' is actually anti- so many other good things. Terrorism - sometimes being cast as pro-Islam or pro-Tamil or whatever, becomes cast as anti-life... and suddenly being Tamil seems so much less important.

The problem, then, with anti-Bush was that Bush actually isn't anything bad in particular. He's a person. There wasn't a cohesive pro- that came from being anti-Bush. people who were pro-Bush were pro-Christian, pro-environment, pro- all the things that were going well. People who were anti- were just angry at him, often for a diffuse set of things that they couldn't package well. Some were anti-war on terror - but then, how do you avoid being pro-terrorism? That's tricky. Other people said they could do the stuff he did, but better - and yet, they didn't provide the package; they were all anti- quite a few things his supporters still support.

With McCain, he himself didn't stand up for things like Palin did. You could be pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-female, and pro-Palin as a result. With McCain, you just said ... he's a great guy, and I'm sure he'd do a good job. It was the inverse of being anti-Bush. It's being pro a person, not anything larger.

So there we go.

That's a nonsensical arguement. You can only come out agains't something your opponent stands for. If you come out against pedophilia it's meaningless because so will your opponent, and so it has no measurable effect on votes. Notice how the Rebuplicans attempt to be the "pro-America" party has backfired miserably in this campaign. Obama easily made the case that he was just as pro-America, and those foolish enough to drive the point like Michele Bachmann paid for such nonsense.

To say Obama didn't take a stand on issues, such as Iraq, health care or taxes is just to show yourself as uninformed.

The problem, then, with anti-Bush was that Bush actually isn't anything bad in particular.

And that' s the problem Bush had. He would say, "I'm for keeping America safe", thereby implying that anyone who was against him was against keeping America safe. That's why Obama's speeches worked. Instead of being just against the Iraqi invasion by saying, "wrong war, wrong time," Obama focused on pushing a plan to bring the troops home. He took the pro-giving responsibility for Iraq's security back to Iraq. He was pro-returning the focus back to getting bin Laden. He was for something.

It was often humorous watching McCain and Palin reflexively come out against something Obama was for, especially when it was often positions McCain had endorsed in the past.

Republicans need to decide exactly which party they are. You've got two groups that are naturally opposed to one another - the capitalist elites and the mostly-lower-middle-class evangelicals. This is not a tent that could have held together forever, and it's falling apart.

So, GOP, you need to decide... which of those groups are you actually representative of?

I absolutely agree w/ Greatbear- and I'm a dem. Honestly, if "Anybody But Bush" didn't work for the Dems in 2004, what on Earth made you all think that your own version "The Guy We Barely Tolerate Instead of Obama" would work for you in 2008???

Four years ago everyone was talking about the "breakdown" of the Democratic party and speculating about what would happen and where we'd go. Since then the Dems have taken control of both the House and the Senate and last week they took the White House. Here's a hint for you Republicans- We didn't repeat our mistakes again this year.

Those that don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it- and it doesn't have to be YOUR past.

I'd say the tent is larger than that... and the democrat tent is pretty much like sarin wrap around a bunch of cats too. Neither really has a stable coalition of people who take a uniform view of what the USA is and where it should be going. In this, overall, we have a problem.